get_address_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what information is returned (e.g., 'Native token balance provided as is, without adjusting by decimals'), which helps the agent understand output format nuances that annotations don't capture.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of specific information returned, and ending with usage context. While efficient, the bulleted list format slightly reduces structural elegance compared to a purely prose approach.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (comprehensive address analysis) and lack of output schema, the description does a good job explaining what information is returned through the detailed bullet points. However, it doesn't specify response format structure or potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, data freshness), leaving some gaps for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (chain_id, address) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get comprehensive information about an address') and lists detailed resource types (address existence, token balance, ENS name, contract status, proxy info, token details). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive address analysis rather than specific operations like get_transactions_by_address or get_contract_abi.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Essential for address analysis, contract investigation, token research, and DeFi protocol analysis'), giving concrete use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for more targeted operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.